Craig is an animal issues advocate who is continuing to
evolve toward becoming a “Humaneitarian” and helping to right “animal
wrongs” as part of that evolution.

When we were just youngsters, our parents helped most of us learn the
difference between right and wrong.

We learned that what was “right” was generally in accord with morality,
justice, law, propriety, and the common good, for example.

On the other hand, our parents taught us that what was “wrong” was generally
about immorality, injustice, illegality, impropriety, and the common bad (to
coin a new phrase).

As we were growing up, our thought processes were maturing, and we became
better able to understand what the word “wrong” meant, by dictionary
definition: “That which is wrong morally or socially; an unjust,
injurious, or immoral act or circumstance; an invasion or violation of
another’s legal rights.”

In short, we learned as kids that we should be mindful not to do what we
knew to be wrong, but instead to do what we knew to be right.

The words right and wrong lead us further, to the very subjects of rights
and wrongs.

As adults, we are typically concerned with what we call “human rights.”
We consider ourselves to be humanitarians because we willingly deal with the
needs of mankind in general and the alleviation of human suffering in
particular.

Interestingly, the word “humane” is derived from the root word
human. When we act humanely, we are seen as having the good qualities of
humans, such as compassion, kindness, benevolence, and mercy.

In an ideal world, each of us humans is humane -- and collectively, all
of humanity exhibits the qualities that flow out of the word humane.

The Golden Rule comes to mind, whereby we are taught that we should behave
towards others as we would have others behave towards us.

Notice that the word “others” is commonly taken to mean other humans --
other people -- regardless of their color, creed, religion, national origin,
and so on.

In examining that word, we note that others are likely to be of a different
character or quality from ourselves. However, their difference from us
does not mean that we are entitled to treat them differently from how we
ourselves expect to be treated, in accordance with The Golden Rule.

Now let’s take a big step forward, as “humane humans,” and cause ourselves
to “see” that the word “others” as used in the dictionary definition of the
“Golden Rule” can and should include ALL members of what we call the animal
kingdom, scientifically known as Animalia, and not just the human component
of that kingdom.

We humans should readily discern that, in many ways, the non-human beings we
call animals have desires that are fundamentally similar to those of the
human beings we call people.

Animals are both similar to us and different from us; just as people are
similar to each other, yet different in race, ethnicity, and other ways.

Common sense alone holds that animals would -- if they only could -- ask us
not to make them the victims of human-imposed cruelty, abuse, pain, and
suffering.

It makes logical sense that, just as The Golden Rule should apply to groups
of human beings who have both similarities and differences, it should also
apply to non-human beings.

We humans would not ourselves willingly suffer any man-made or woman-made
abuses, and we therefore ought not impose them upon non-humans. If we
do, whether we abuse animals directly or indirectly, we are violating the
very spirit of The Golden Rule.

Having made this quantum leap in recognition and understanding, we can see
that just as humans have what we call human rights, animals have what we
call animal rights. It’s also important to see that these two sets of
rights are compatible and essentially one and the same.

For far too long in our history, there has been a disconnect between human
rights and animal rights, and that disconnect has caused discord between
people who are “for” human rights (but not necessarily for animal rights)
and people who are “for” animal rights (and typically for human rights as
well).

At its essence, there should be no conflict between these sets of rights.
In fact, there should be amicable cooperation between human rights adherents
and animal rights adherents.

Why? Because both groups want to do the right thing -- they want to
eliminate wrongs.

So we can readily discern that the issues associated with both sets of
rights are indeed not mutually exclusive, but rather, are mutually
inclusive.

It is not “us versus them,” i.e. human rights versus animal rights.
These rights should be accorded to all of the animals in the animal kingdom.
Just because humans are intellectually superior to many animals in many
respects does not give us license to inflict needless pain, suffering, and
death -- by the billions in numbers -- upon them.

We also learned as children that “might does not make right.” We
should realize, most obviously in the lives of animals that are sentient
like we are, that humans do not have the right to treat them in any way
other than that by which we ourselves intend to be treated. That way
is set forth by The Golden Rule, a rule of life that seems to have virtually
universal acceptance by people around the entire world.

For Christians, this rule springs from Matthew 7:12 in the Bible.
Variations of the rule appear in other religions as well; hence, the
suggestion that some form of The Golden Rule is widely known to people
almost everywhere on earth. For example, the philosopher and
physician, Maimonides Moses, is quoted as saying, “Do not do to others what
is hateful to you.” If you think about it, this phrase adds even an
extra dimension to The Golden Rule.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful, then, if these morally appropriate and almost
universally accepted words were applied for benefit of earth’s non-human
animals just as they are for its human ones?

Instead, so far in human history at least, even religious people have leaned
on the presumption that “Man” has dominion over the animals --that we can
control them, and by extension, treat them however we choose, no matter how
much we besmirch the Golden Rule in so doing.

A fine book on this subject, The Dominion of Love, has been written by
Norman Phelps, and it ought to be “required reading” for adults, especially
if they are religious.

On the cover of the book appears a quote by Reverend Andrew Linzey, who
said: “After decades of neglect, churches are beginning to take the
issue of justice to animals seriously. Many books have influenced this
change, and The Dominion of Love is an insightful, judicious, and inspiring
contribution to this growing library.”

To quote Mr. Phelps directly: “The ‘dominion’ or ‘stewardship’ that
the Bible tells us God has given us over the other living beings in the
world is simply an opportunity to love God concretely by protecting and
nurturing God’s creation.”

To grow the library of influential books and quotes like these is one thing,
but it is even
more important for us to dramatically grow the numbers of people who are
against “animal wrongs” -- and thereby for animal rights.

People know that there are billions upon billions of animals that are
enslaved and subjugated by “Man” and made to endure living hell in the
ghastly process.

We “humane humans” ought not be a part of that process, either directly or
indirectly. The fact is, we do not have to be part of it; we can
instead choose to abandon it. We can follow the essence of our own
conscience and apply The Golden Rule to all creatures great and small in our
human interactions with them.

Peter Singer has suggested that we expand our moral horizons, “so that
practices that were previously regarded as natural and inevitable are now
seen as intolerable.”

Among the people who have most broadly expanded their moral horizons are
those who have become vegetarians, and better yet, vegans. These
humane humans live by the Golden Rule every day.

They have chosen not to eat dead animal flesh (euphemistically called
“meat”), nor to eat, in the case of vegans, any other animal-based products.
These choices are part of their daily lifestyle; typically for health,
environmental, and, especially, moral and ethical reasons.

The world-renowned genius Albert Einstein said: “Nothing will benefit
health and increase chances for survival on Earth so much as the evolution
to a vegetarian diet.”

Let’s join together with all our fellow men, women, and children in moving
ever closer to The-Golden-Rule-based goal of becoming “Humaneitarians.”
In so doing, we will evolve towards becoming a truly humane society.

It is easier now than ever before in history to evolve in this way,
especially given the tremendous array of vegetarian and vegan food choices
-- tasty and healthy alternatives to the horrific cruelty and suffering that
underlies the production of “meat” and other animal-based products.

Think about it. Would YOU like to be a so-called “food animal”?
Because your answer is doubtless an emphatic “NO,” may I ask that you
reflect on a mightily meaningful quote by Henry Spira: “If you see
something that’s wrong, you’ve got to do something about it.”

It is indeed right for humans not only to stand up against wrongs, but also
to take personal action to end them. Heaven forbid that we participate
in wrongs, either directly or indirectly.

We humans are the most powerful members of the animal kingdom. Let us
unite in both seeing “animal wrongs” and in acting to DO SOMETHING ABOUT
THEM.

This article was written by Craig Cline of Salem, Oregon, an animal
issues advocate who is continuing to evolve toward becoming a
“Humaneitarian” and helping to right “animal wrongs” as part of that
evolution. Also read Craig's article, What the World Needs Now.

Fair Use Notice: This document, and others on our web site, may contain copyrighted
material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners.
We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use
of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use,
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.